Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon 64 x2 6400 or Phenom 9500?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 23, 2007 4:26:26 PM

Is Phenom 9500 confiable?
I seeking for a new PC, but i'm having serious problems with processor.
Wich i choose, Athlon x2 64 6400 Black Edition or Phenom 9500?
Both since to be a good choice but I heard that Phenom have some bugs.
December 23, 2007 4:28:19 PM

Easy... X2 6400 BE.
Related resources
December 24, 2007 3:35:50 AM

...Wierd double post.
December 24, 2007 3:36:15 AM

hughyhunter said:
You need to seriously read this article... http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/19/amd_phenom_athlo...

Dont even consider the dual core.... quad core is the future.... and besides, why get a proc that is limited due to it's 90nm manufacture process? Get the 65nm phenom that is future proof!



3.2 GHz vs 2.3 GHz... I don't think IPC is going to help there.

What do you plan to use the PC for?
December 24, 2007 3:52:16 AM

hughyhunter said:
You need to seriously read this article... http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/19/amd_phenom_athlo...

Dont even consider the dual core.... quad core is the future.... and besides, why get a proc that is limited due to it's 90nm manufacture process? Get the 65nm phenom that is future proof!


Really... getting a quad core that is currently crippled, and incomplete?
X-bit labs on Phenom's performance.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom...

As you can see here, Phenom 9500 is outperformed by 6400 X2, in almost all of the benchmarks (except synthetic).

Most programs don't use over a single core, and there are very few of them use over two cores. For desktop applications, it will be a long while before we see many programs that seriously take advantage of 4 cores. For a desktop user, more core counts don't mean as much as more clockspeed.

On the other hand, AMD's 90nm process is far superior than their 65nm process.
December 24, 2007 4:06:27 AM

yomamafor1 said:
Most programs don't use over a single core, and there are very few of them use over two cores. For desktop applications, it will be a long while before we see many programs that seriously take advantage of 4 cores.


True, but programs that really _need_ that kind of performance are going to support quad cores fast, if they don't do so already. Word doesn't need four cores (or even two), but, for example, video compression needs all the CPU power it can get; the video compression program I use has supported 'dual cores' at least since the hyperthreading era, I presume it supports quads now too.
December 24, 2007 4:11:07 AM

MarkG said:
True, but programs that really _need_ that kind of performance are going to support quad cores fast, if they don't do so already. Word doesn't need four cores (or even two), but, for example, video compression needs all the CPU power it can get; the video compression program I use has supported 'dual cores' at least since the hyperthreading era, I presume it supports quads now too.



Which is why it's important to know what he intends to use the processor for.
December 24, 2007 5:38:09 AM

With all being said... it doesnt really matter what he is going to use his comp for... the future is quad core. Even if all he wants to do is play games- crysis is utilizing all four cores right now... so games in the coming months should too.
December 24, 2007 6:50:44 AM

hughyhunter said:
With all being said... it doesnt really matter what he is going to use his comp for... the future is quad core. Even if all he wants to do is play games- crysis is utilizing all four cores right now... so games in the coming months should too.


Actually, Crysis only utilizes two cores maximum. The only game I know of that really takes advantage of quad core, is Supreme Commander. However, the difference is no more than 10%.

Quad core may be the future. It really depends on how the program is written in the first place. Since desktop applications are not CPU-intensive like server applications, it will be a while before quad core becomes the mainstream.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2007 11:24:41 AM

yomamafor1 has my vote ... tho the 5000+ is a good option (albeit they have half the cache) because they run cooler and chew a bit less power.

The 90nm process is superior as the higher end chips use the 2 X 1MB mask and AMD only made a 2 X 512K mask for the 65nm cores.

If it is for gaming get a 6000+ or 6400+.
General purpose? Get a 5000+.
Overclocker ... 5000+ black edition. (best of both worlds).

Sometime early next year AMD will have done a respin and their quad core cpu's will hopefully be up to spec ... then you can upgrade simply by swapping chips.

That's why I would recommend a cheaper X2 cpu like the 5000+ ... you won't be throwing away so much money.

I won't touch their Phenom till it is sorted ... and I am an AMD fan ... just not a stupid one.

December 24, 2007 11:34:12 AM

Hey, I know that there's been lots of egg nog goin down my gullet lately and I'm not realy lucid :)  but can someone anyone explain to me why you would buy a curent Phenom? If I put an ad up for a bike that said "the engine might just stall on you when you're on the highway passing a bus" do you think anyone would actually be dumb enough to buy it? Or maybe I should adopt the current stance of AMD which is (rumored) to be "lets release a fixed version to compete with Nehalem," which is the bike eqivalent of "Buy my 250cc Chinese V-twin... it's about the same price as a new Harley... but at least we've fixed the problem that has you stall in front of a bus."

I've owned AMD in the past and they've been perfectly fine chips. I'd be happy to consder them again for my next build. But theyre not even on the Radar Screen. Not because I'm a Intel fanboi. Because AMD right now is not even close to being in the enthusast CPU market!

That's my opinion and now I'll go back to more eggynoggy! yum yum yum! :) 
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2007 11:51:26 AM

Chinese V-Twin ... jeez they aren't that bad. That's a Cryix.

Russian outboard motor is probably closer to the truth ... gutsy but hard to start ... lol.

From Ferrari (AM64) to Russian outboard motor all due to not listening to the engineering team and rushing out a product not ready for market.
December 24, 2007 12:40:23 PM

It's more like the engine might explode if it's hot and you press the gas to hard and name a few more reasons in desktop environment, or so they want us to believe I am not sure I don't own one.

The reason to buy a phenom would be the price. It's very cheap now, though you are still buying a "damaged" product. It's not worth it and as yomamafor1 says (can't believe I agree with him for once) a quadcore is not needed yet for desktop. It's great if you want to get the best performance, but for mainstream it's not needed yet. As most said, the change to dual core from single was bigger advancement then the change to quad will be. A lot of people will skip this step probably going for 8 or 16, depending on the speed of the cpu market and the slowness of the program market.

I would say get the 5000+ or 6400+ depending on your budget. If you got more money get the 6400, if you can get a better video card by going for the 5000+ do that, in the end for gaming, a good video card is worth more then a faster cpu.
December 24, 2007 1:04:26 PM

Ok, reynod, not Chinese Vtwin but Ural flat twin! Just as useless and clunky and faulty and sold only to people who dont have the brains G-d gave a squirrel. :) 

Trinix, what planet are you living on? Is it planet Hectoria Prime, the one where Phenoms are cheaper than C2Q? :)  Everywhere I'm looking I'm finding Q6600 which is a 2.4 part that actualy works (wow... actually works...) cheaper than the 2.3 AMD that doesn't. If I sell an engine that I know the crankpin is going to break if it gets hot and it gets throtled too hard then I deserve to be put out of business by lawsuits. Why does none of this apply to AMD?

I would advise OP to forget AMD, if he has an AM2 or something board to crack it in half over his knee and buy a product that is competitive, comptetively priced, and is acknowliged to work!

Paul O, you can send me my commision check now! :) 
December 24, 2007 1:22:13 PM

i'll use it for gaming. You're making more confused but more CPU expert too. I don't like Intel and I'm not a AMD fan but there ins't other option :) 
The quest is: Have Phenom 9500 bugs that could make him a "bomb"?
December 24, 2007 1:30:30 PM

Salsicha, hermano! The P9500 is like a chorizo thats been left out in the sun too long. Might look ok on the outside but inside its full of magots! :) 

The TLB erata is something that most people say will not show up in normal operation. If thats the case why is AMD acknowlidging that theyre faulty, giving some away, etc.?

Cant see why you say you dont like intel. Paul O may be a bolillo but he is far less of a chingadero than that chavala Hector. But so what? A chip is a chip, carnal! You buy the one that works and who cares if the company grinds up ferrets to make it?

Take it from your amigo borracho guaino! Aguila Phenom, vato!
December 24, 2007 1:36:50 PM

hughyhunter said:
You need to seriously read this article... http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/19/amd_phenom_athlo...

Dont even consider the dual core.... quad core is the future.... and besides, why get a proc that is limited due to it's 90nm manufacture process? Get the 65nm phenom that is future proof!


You seriously need to comprehend that article :>
You seriously need to compare that article to other articles on Phenom to realize what THG did.

The relative performance results returned by THG were the same as the the initial test results using ES samples from AMD.

Why is this important?

#1) AMD has since cut the NB speed from 2.0 to 1.8 to address stability misc problems. Please Checkout Extreme Systems forums for some of the results. It's a noticible performance cut which THG did not see since they were not using the same chip you will buy in a store.

#2) AMD is proding "TLB Errata" fixes for the BIOS which lowers performance. THG also did not deploy the code to fix the bugged CPUs.

#3) The Relative Per-Core speed of the Phenom is skewed since only a single core is using the full L3 cache.
As multiple cores are active, they will need to share L3 and the gain from each core will be less.

Under un-biased testing conditions, the X2 will have a notibly higher not lower IPC than the Phenom.
Add to this the AMD runs at speeds about 40% faster so all applications which do not support quad cores will lose.

Furthermore, many applications that support multiple cores, will not see a linear gain from more cores because the threads that are distributed among the cores may not be able to balance the load with some threads simply more intense than others.

The result is that in the Majority of cases the Phenom will be extremely slower.
In some cases the Phenom will be only a little slower for those items that support quad cores.
In isolated cases it will have a small performance gain.

In all cases, it will cost quite a bit more which could mean you will need to sacrifice legitimate upgrades such
as GPU, PSU, RAM, etc.... to get the downgrade.

Not wise in my book.
December 24, 2007 1:40:52 PM

zenmaster we are not worthy!

I could never in a million years be able to snatch the pebble from your hand! :) 
December 24, 2007 1:41:50 PM

The Phenom 9500 is nicely priced, so it's worth the little extra cost over the Dual core 6400+X2. Gaming wise the 6400+ would be better, but as games become Multi-cored to use Quads the Phenom will own the 6400+ X2.

December 24, 2007 1:45:33 PM

I won't touch their Phenom till it is sorted ... and I am an AMD fan ... just not a stupid one.

Word!
December 24, 2007 1:48:42 PM

reconviperone1 said:
I won't touch their Phenom till it is sorted ... and I am an AMD fan ... just not a stupid one.

Word!


Correct.
If you are an AMD Loyalist and really want a quad.
Wait on the B3.
December 24, 2007 1:50:31 PM

zenmaster said:
Correct.
If you are an AMD Loyalist and really want a quad.
Wait on the B3.


... or throw your AMD loyalism down the craper and wait another couple of months after B3 and get a Nehalem which will totaly anhailate your Phenom. :) 
December 24, 2007 2:05:44 PM

I'm trying to keep the AMD vs Intel arguement out of this thread.
The poster wants AMD, so be it.

Right now, in the AMD realm, X2 is the way to go.
They are cheaper and more powerful than the Phenom.

While the faster Phenoms have now been pushed back to Q2 from Q1, my guess is its going to be late Q2 or maybe even Q3.

The reason is that AMD began announcing more X2 chips after things hit the fan. If the delay was going to be minimal, I would not have expected AMD to introduce new products to cover a short delay.
December 24, 2007 2:10:38 PM

youre absolutely right about the OP's intent and there is no argument coming from your humble apprentice Grasshopper. But if someone comes into my shop wanting me to build a $50K chopper with a 6bhp marine single cylinder diesel engine I have a responsability to tell him he's out of his freakin mind. I need the money real bad but I wont advise people to throw their money in the firepalce. There's right opinions and wrong opinions and 6 horse diesel singles in a chopper is just wrong. So is Phenom. :) 
December 24, 2007 2:24:04 PM

OlSkoolChopper said:


Where do these statements come from? Hector is that you? :lol: 


lol....If I was, I wouldn't feel to proud at the moment

Here in the UK the prices vary, one site is selling the Phenom almost £30 cheaper than the Q6600. It all depends where you shop ;) 
December 24, 2007 2:29:17 PM

OlSkoolChopper said:
get a Nehalem which will totaly anhailate your Phenom. :) 


Your probably right, but that seems quite a strong statement to make without any proof? Who knows what AMD will be offering around that time.

Edit: Penryn is only starting to appear with the Extreme Editon first, so Nehalem being avaliable any time soon is unlikely
December 24, 2007 2:35:42 PM

speedbird said:
Your probably right, but that seems quite a strong statement to make without any proof? Who knows what AMD will be offering around that time.


I'm just basing it on the roadmaps that have been released and reproted by legitimate media... and that eliminates the Inq from consederation! :lol: 

From everything I've read (and corect me if I'm wrong) AMD's 45nm parts will be out after Intel's 32nm Nehalem and the expectd performance of Nehalem is suposed to be in a completely separate league. There is no credable expectetion of an AMD lead in the enthuseast market for at least two years or more... or ever if things keep going the way they are... look at the AMD stock chart right now. Freefall in the last half hour.
December 24, 2007 2:42:04 PM

Maybe, but lets wait and see ;) 
December 24, 2007 2:45:24 PM

AMD: Down 14 cents in 40 minuts... wonder if Wall St. is reading this forum? :) 
December 24, 2007 4:13:20 PM

I constantly come to these forums and find tons of people screaming "Buy a Q6600" its the future!! The fact still remains that more then 2/3 of PC users do not OC or will OC a rig. A Q6600 is not enough CPU to run a good 8800. Its a very poor gaming chip out of the box. OC is a must. Its like trying to tow a trailer with a Celica. As for future games being quad core enabled that is a load of BS. There is 1 other title in the next 2 years due to release with quad core support. PC gaming is not even close to being ready for the switch yet. Way to many people on these forums telling gamers to buy a quad. I get this IRL all of the time. "Why is my computer so slow?" and "It doesnt run well at the native resolution for my LCD" are questions I get all of the time because they fell for the "Quad buzz". I end up poping a nice C2D in and buying the quad at a discount. I have 13 Q6600 chips sitting in my workshop anyone want one?? NOT! This is not an Intel vs AMD topic. This is a performance per $$$ topic. Quads are not worth a crap when it comes to performance per $$ atm for just about 90+++% of the home PC user market or will be for over 2 years.
December 24, 2007 4:25:28 PM

"performance per $$$ topic"

OK, then defend why ncix is charging one dollar more for Phenom 9500 than a Q6600 today. Let's use any legitamate benchmark you want.

And if your 13 Q6600 chips havent been fried or phucked with, I'll buy em off you right now. There are hundreds of thousands of people who bought Q6600s. Very strange that none of them are in your neigborhood. Where do you live? Tikrit?:) 
December 24, 2007 4:32:54 PM

AFter reading all the crap that's on this post and my ignorant stance on the Phenom I have to agree that the quad at the moment probably isnt the way to go.

It's hard to grasp that yeah... not a lot of people are going to overclock and get all excited about there 3dmark scores. If you are like me and get stocked when you see a jump of 3k in a 3dmark benchmark from an overclock than get a quad core... waist some money... everyone on these posts seem to have so much of it anyway.

Quad core will rule on the benchmark because if it didnt I would be bragging right now about my 3 gig overclock that still cant come close to a 3 gig q6600 o'c.

I could have sworn that I read an article that crysis was tested and sure enough it was utilizing to the fullest extent "all four cores" but I may be wrong and may have misinterpreted that article like I apparently misinterpreted the previous article about phenom vs. X2
December 24, 2007 4:48:44 PM

Jersey,

LOL!!!
I really feel bad for your customers.

The best way to run a business is to treat your customers fairly and honestly. If you continue to cheat your customers, your negative reputation will precede you.

You will be tough pressed to find a Game that is highly constrained by a C2D or Q2D running at 2.4Ghz. Most likely it's going to be the GPU or perhaps memory. (Yes, the 3rd GB can be quite important for some games. This leaves a full 2gb for the Game and 1gb free for the OS.)

Secondly, People on this board make "complete" recommendations.
That includes not running the Conroe at Stock and only buying retail boards that properly support the OC.

It's like selling somebody a Sports Car with a Stick Shift and complaining that it cant hit high speeds in 1st gear.

The Reason why the Quads are recommended is because they can OC to nearly the same Speed as the C2D chips. (3.4 vs 3.6 or maybe 3.6 vs 3.8) Less than 10% performance difference which is generally not highly noticable. However, when something is quad supported the quad chip will win by 50% or more.

The issue in this thread is that the Phenom is clocking about 40% slower than the X2 not 5-10%. Additionally, these chips are already much slower than the Intel chips so the extra power is needed.

When you see the threads for folks suggesting the Quad, it is usually the last and final upgrade after all of the other components. No, people are not recommending the Q6600 as better value for performance than the E2160. But for those who have the cash and want to spend the money, go for it.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2007 6:03:54 PM

JerseyGamer it is way more then 2/3 of pc users that dont overlock. BUT THEY ARE NOT ON HARDWARE FORUMS. They do not build there own pcs. They also couldnt tell the different parts of a pc if you layed them out on a table. They also dont know any better if they are going to a shop to see why there pc's arent peforming. People suggest parts for what the user wants/needs.

The q6600 is a very bad gaming chip out of the box? WHAT. It does not perform as well as the higher clocked c2d's but its not a very bad chip. Then the only chips that arent very bad are e6750 and up? And nothing AMD makes is any better then a very bad gaming cpu then. Its sad that some people are actually paying you for computer advice/builds. Thats prove enuff to how clueless the majority of pc users are.
December 24, 2007 6:16:28 PM

someguy7 said:
Its sad that some people are actually paying you for computer advice/builds.


Aparently not enough people are paying him for his builds or he wouldnt have 13 Q6600s on his shelf claiming nobody wants them. Either that or hes just a 13 year old wannabe fanboi who's spoutin a line of s*** to make himself feel like hes a grownup. :kaola: 
December 24, 2007 6:22:13 PM

Don't get the Phenom if you plan on running everything stock. However, if you plan to OC...

Then wait a week and go for the Phenom 9600 Black Edition. There are reports that the chip OCs stable to 2.8 - 3.0 ghz... which at that point you would outperform the x2 6400+.
December 24, 2007 7:24:51 PM

i'll use it whithout OC. I think that for now the best is 6400 cuz only in february the B3 will be sold
December 24, 2007 7:45:57 PM

Maybe right now invest in the 790FX mobo and get a 5000+ black edition... that way you can overclock the heck out of the thing to a nice 3.2Ghz and when AMD comes out with nice procs this year upgrade and you're only out a hundred bucks or you could sell that old sucker for $50 to someone that wants it like me!!!
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2007 8:58:31 PM

SaLsiChA said:
Is Phenom 9500 confiable?
I seeking for a new PC, but i'm having serious problems with processor.
Wich i choose, Athlon x2 64 6400 Black Edition or Phenom 9500?
Both since to be a good choice but I heard that Phenom have some bugs.


Get a Q6600 and overclock like crazy - best performance in single, dual and quad threaded applications ;) 
December 24, 2007 9:43:00 PM

hughyhunter said:
Maybe right now invest in the 790FX mobo and get a 5000+ black edition... that way you can overclock the heck out of the thing to a nice 3.2Ghz and when AMD comes out with nice procs this year upgrade and you're only out a hundred bucks or you could sell that old sucker for $50 to someone that wants it like me!!!


Yep.. that was the point I was getting at. Phenom currently does not worth your bucks. Maybe B3 revision will, but that's only maybe. On the other hand, AMD's 5000+ BE proved to be a great overclocker (3.2Ghz on stock), while costing a lot less, and a lot more useful than Phenom. As I said earlier, for desktop applications, clockspeed is still very important. This is why you seldom see Q6600 beating E6850 in gaming.

If you really want an AMD quad, I would recommend Shanghai, the 45nm version of K10. It should be a little less power hungry, and higher performing.

However, if you really want a quad for computer, and don't mind getting everything new, Intel is the only way to go at the moment.
December 24, 2007 9:47:00 PM

yomamafor1 said:


However, if you really want a quad for computer, and don't mind getting everything new, Intel is the only way to go at the moment.



I wouldnt completely rule out the 9500 right now for the price. It isnt all that bad of a proc. It should however only be listed for $130.... considering that's about all it is worth.
December 24, 2007 9:49:02 PM

hughyhunter said:
I wouldnt completely rule out the 9500 right now for the price. It isnt all that bad of a proc. It should however only be listed for $130.... considering that's about all it is worth.


Agreed. But for the same price, you can get a 5000+ BE, which performs a lot better (especially in gaming), I see little reason to go Phenom now.
December 24, 2007 10:09:16 PM

Yeah I would definitley do the same in getting a 5000+ black edition! It overclocks like crazy!
December 25, 2007 4:00:26 AM

Now here is something I don't get - so many people say "Get 790FX and 5000+ BE now, B3 Phenom later". WHY would anyone do that (apart from blind fanboyism)? You can get a Q6600 NOW and overclock it to 3.6GHz without any hassles. That will beat the pants off an overclocked 5000+ BE, and will almost certainly be faster than any future B3 Phenom as well. It'll take a 4GHz Phenom just to match a Q6600 @ 3.6GHz, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

So someone has to go through all this extra trouble and expense on the 790FX platform, for what? No matter what you do, at the end of the day you'll end up with worse performance, for more money.
December 25, 2007 4:29:13 AM

It could be their preference to use a certain company's product.... there's nothing wrong in that...
December 25, 2007 5:11:00 AM

yomamafor1 said:
It could be their preference to use a certain company's product.... there's nothing wrong in that...


Yeah, just like there was nothing wrong in Baron choosing to get his QuadFX too... oh wait... :lol: 
December 25, 2007 5:41:15 AM

Its one thing to have preference to use a certain company's product, but another to spread incorrect information regarding your company of preference.
December 25, 2007 5:51:00 AM

AMD has a good thing going with the 790FX... might not have such a great product in the phenom... but the spyder platform is definitely something I myself would strongly consider when upgrading. The q6600 on an X38 is fast for sure but I think the 790FX with two 3870's with a "future" AMD quad will be equally as impressive. All components from the same hand!
!